The New Dark Age

On March 4th, CNN exposed how the CIA is working to arm Kurdish forces in Iraq, “with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran.” A ground operation is expected to commence within days, the Agency having secretly funneled money and weapons to armed factions for months. The plan is for armed Kurds to pin down Iranian forces, precipitating mass insurrectionary demonstrations. There are ample grounds to believe even if the deranged operation goes ahead, it will end in disaster.

Within hours, The Atlantic expanded on CNN’s exclusive with a bold report, “The Coming Invasion of Iran”. It revealed how “thousands of Iranian Kurdish militants are gathering in Iraqi Kurdistan, set to receive American and Israeli financial and military support to launch a major attack on Iranian territory.” A quintet of Kurdish Iranian political parties have begun preparing “thousands” of their supporters in Iraq to strike, and received “significant funds for arms and logistical support” from for the purpose.

The Atlantic failed to question the legality or morality of this strategy. Still, a welter of think tank apparatchiks and supposed regional ‘experts’ warned against exploiting Kurds as ground forces, warning it would “lead Iran to disintegration or civil war.” Results for the country and wider region were universally predicted to be absolutely catastrophic. A representative of the rabidly Zionist Foundation for Defense of Democracies forecast a Kurdish invasion would be “almost guaranteed to end in a failed state.” Even a diaspora “pro-democracy” activist cautioned:

“This would unite many Iranians who cherish Iran’s territorial integrity above all. It would be a recipe for civil war…A large coalition of Iranians, whether they are monarchist or republican, whether they are religious or secular, would unite against these parties.”

Despite the inevitable prospect of invading Kurds being massacred in large numbers by Iran’s redoubtable one-million-strong army, “the battle seems to be already on.” The Financial Times spells out how “Israel’ is unconcerned about the consequences of this mission, both for Tehran herself and the Kurds doing the fighting and dying. Tel Aviv “couldn’t care less about the future” or “the stability of Iran.” A nameless Zionist entity military intelligence officer told the outlet, “We want to ensure Iran stays in disarray”:

“[Israel seeks] total destruction of this regime, of the pillars of this regime, of everything that holds it together: the IRGC, the Basij [grassroots militia], its strategic capabilities. Israel couldn’t care less about the future…[or] the stability of Iran…Israel wants to destroy the Iranian regime’s capabilities to such an extent that it will not have to fight another round. They want to finish the job now.”

One might ask why, yet again, Kurds appear all too willing to serve as CIA and MI6 proxy footsoldiers, given the sordid history of London and Washington exploiting them as cannon fodder before invariably abandoning them to literal fate. Only in January, Kurds in Rojava were left defenceless as HTS forces in Syria violently seized their territory, and let loose thousands of hardened ISIS prisoners. However, leaked files reveal how British intelligence conducts propaganda campaigns targeting Kurds, which could serve as a potent recruitment tool.

‘Political Marginalisation’

In April 2015, The Stabilisation Network – a shadowy British government contractor spun out of ARK, an MI6 front – secretly published an extensive “target audience analysis” of Iraqi citizens. The research was conducted in service of a covert psychological warfare campaign, waged by London to shore up support for Prime Minister Haider Abadi’s government among the non-Shiite population, while deterring them from supporting or in any way assisting ISIS. Among the targets were Iraqi Kurds.

The Stabilisation Network observed how a sizeable number of Kurds were “largely disaffected” with the Iraqi government, and harboured little interest “in a unified Iraq.” Some had “extreme attitudes.” Over the course of intensive focus groups with locals, it was consistently found that while Kurdish respondents almost universally rejected ISIS, the group’s key propaganda messages had a “significant resonance” with them. For example, a clear majority of surveyed Kurds rejected Baghdad’s territorial integrity, agreeing with Daesh’s proposition that their country’s borders “should be changed.”

Moreover, 48% of Kurds endorsed ISIS messaging on how “the border between Iraq and Syria was drawn by Europeans,” and “people who actually live near this border have the right to reject this history.” The Stabilisation Network ranked “the unresolved Kurdish hope for an independent homeland” as among the “most salient grievances Iraqi Kurds carry,” but also the “least likely to be resolved in the short to medium term.” A concomitant desire for “retribution” was found to be commonplace.

Kurds were furthermore considerably more likely than other Sunnis in Iraq to perceive Tehran as possessing “too much influence” locally. While 54% of Iraqi respondents overall said this argument made “no sense at all”, over 90% of surveyed residents of Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah supported this view. The former is a disputed territory, fought over for decades by Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen. The latter is a key city in Baghdad’s Kurdistan Region, bordering Iran.

“Disillusionment” with the Iraqi government was “widespread” among Sunnis, and again, Kurds in particular. This stemmed from the perception they had “been marginalised and, interestingly, abandoned [emphasis in original] by political leaders” locally. Particular “antipathy” was reserved for the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, 2006 – 2014. He was widely perceived as pursuing “sectarian” policies producing “political marginalisation and disenfranchisement” of non-Shiites, and thus being “in favour of a certain sect.” Maliki was moreover “seen by some to serve the interests of Tehran”:

“Many respondents blamed the previous Maliki administration for the sectarian problems that existed in Iraq, as well as the rise of [ISIS],” the target audience analysis concluded. Others “discussed a belief that an Iranian-controlled Shiite government in Baghdad was trying to marginalise and ‘annihilate’ Sunnis in Iraq.” British intelligence argued “perceived and real” grievances over Maliki’s rule were “more manageable” than others in getting respondents to accept Baghdad’s territorial units and the central government.

However, this was entirely contingent on Haider Abadi governing with a pro-Sunni bias, to the detriment of Iraq’s far larger Shiite population. After serving just one term, he was followed by a series of solidly Shiite leaders. Fast forward to this January, and Maliki was nominated by Iraq’s “coordination framework” to become Prime Minister again. The move sparked outrage among local Sunnis, and instant, ominous threats from Washington. Maliki defiantly condemned “blatant American interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.”

With the soon-to-be premier refusing to budge, the White House has promised to sanction Baghdad if Maliki is permitted to take office. This was no doubt welcome news to the Kurds identified by British intelligence, who surely feared a resurgence in supposed Iranian influence in the country, and discrimination towards non-Shiites, whether “real” or not. The same target audience believes Iraq’s borders “should be changed,” and reside in areas some Kurds wish to integrate into their own territory via force, which border Iran.

‘Contentious Issues’

It would be unsurprising if this precise Kurdish target audience has been selected to invade the Islamic Republic today. The same demographic was for years in the firing line of elaborate psyops inspired by The Stabilisation Network’s analysis, managed by InCoStrat, a British and US government contractor staffed by military and intelligence veterans. InCoStrat created a clandestine “army” of “advocates” in Iraq to wage a “content insurgency” undermining ISIS’ appeal. Iraqis, including Kurds, “with strong understanding of cultural contexts,” were recruited to oversee “product design.”

“Developing a network of local partners is fundamental,” InCoStrat declared in leaked files related to the project. The exploitation of Iraqis as “content insurgents” also conveniently concealed Britain’s involvement in the connivance, which was considered of paramount importance. InCoStrat sought to achieve an “echo chamber” and “communications vortex”, in which ostensibly independent local NGOs, social media platforms, “local communication channels”, and influencers pumped out MI6-approved messaging. A dedicated “news bureau” would produce “high demand material” for dissemination throughout Iraq, West Asia, and beyond.

InCoStrat leveraged “existing networks” nationwide for the project, training locals in “advocacy”, social media use, journalism, cybersecurity, and “content production”. In addition to the “narratives” created by the firm’s “content insurgents” dominating news outlets domestically and abroad, InCoStrat sought to encourage “productive, intra-sectarian dialogue” between different target audiences. By creating a space for Iraqis of all extractions to “vent their opinions and frustrations around contentious issues and historical grievances,” it was hoped they would become “actively involved in the resolution” of those grievances.

Markedly, among those targets were Kurds who “do not necessarily believe in the Iraqi government and are more likely to favour an autonomous Kurdistan.” There is no indication InCoStrat’s secret “army” of Iraqi propagandists, or its accompanying infrastructure, were ever dismantled. We are left to ponder whether the chorus of Sunni anger that erupted upon Maliki’s nomination as Prime Minister was surreptitiously British-influenced or amplified.

It would likewise be unsurprising if InCoStrat’s psychological warfare apparatus has been exploited to rally targets behind the mission of invading Iran. Regardless, the stage has now been formally set for Kurds to become “actively involved in the resolution” of their “historical grievances” – namely, carving out an “independent homeland” from Iraqi and Iranian territory. As The Stabilisation Network found, the sense Kurds have a “right to reject” established borders is pervasive. So much so, consistent, catastrophic Anglo-American betrayal can once again be perilously overlooked.